Dear Sir,
Macaulay and Martin (October en) may have good points to make about the nature of humanity in the ‘image of God’, but this is a separate issue from their attack on what they call ‘Theistic evolution’, which is nothing of the kind. ‘Through purely physical forces, they suggest, organic life gave rise to ape-like creatures …’ No, a theistic evolu-tionist believes that God gave rise to them. ‘We conclude, therefore, that God’s image-bearers didn’t just evolve. They were designed …’ But theistic evolutionists would agree they were designed. They would say, ‘They didn’t just evolve by chance.’
Personally, I believe there had to be an actual Adam for Christ, the second Adam, to correspond to him. But if Christ was brought about by a divine intervention in the natural human process of conception, could not Adam and Eve be brought about by a similar divine intervention in natural processes? If Adam is described in poetic language as being formed ‘of the dust of the earth’, is not the conception and gestation of any human being described in such poetic language in Psalm 139.15?
